Sts. Nunilo and Alodia pray for us… at Ground Zero

From Dick Morris.com we find this about the proposed mosque at Ground Zero.

My emphases and comments, to be followed by some irony.

The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be — as many mosques throughout the nation are — a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center. [As the "Muslim Brotherhood" might propose.]It is not the worship of Islam that is the problem. It is the efforts to advance Sharia Law with its requirement of [eventual] Jihad and violence that is the nub of the issue.

There is a global effort to advance Sharia Law and make it the legal system of the world. Most major banks and financial institutions offer Sharia Compliant Funds which have their investments vetted by the most fundamentalist and reactionary of clerics to assure that they advance Sharia Law. Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of the proposed Mosque, helps to prepare a Sharia Index which rates countries on their degree of compliance with Sharia Law. In the United Kingdom, many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing law on matters between two Muslims.

Not only is Sharia Law a vicious anti-female code which orders death by stoning, promotes child marriage, decriminalizes abuse of women, and gives wives no rights in divorce, but it also explicitly recognizes the duty of all Muslims to wage Jihad against non-believers and promotes violence to achieve its goals. In this respect, violent Jihad is as inherent in Sharia Law as revolution is in Communist doctrine.

But there are non-Sharia mosques where peaceful and spiritual Muslims worship God in their own way without promoting violence. [I wonder.] A soon-to-be published study funded by Frank Gaffney’s Center for Security Policy, found that 20% of the mosques in the United States have no taint of Sharia and simply promote peaceful worship. But 80% are filled with violent literature, Sharia teachings, and promotion of Jihad and its inevitable concomitant — terrorism.

Which brings us to the ground zero mosque. [But not the chapel to Sts. Nunilo and Alodia!] There can be no doubt that any mosque organized and run by Iman Feisal Abdul Rauf will be based on Sharia Law and will serve as local branch office of the pan-Islamic terrorist offensive against the west. That such a facility should be located right next to the place where Jihad achieved its most hideous triumph is unspeakably inappropriate.

President Obama is confusing the issue when he describes it as one of religious freedom. There is broad latitude to worship God as one chooses. But there is none to promote violence and terrorism. The record of involvement of Sharia mosques with the 9-11 attackers and the Ft. Hood massacre shooter is so deep and extensive that it vividly underscores the difference between a religious institution and an organization that promotes terrorism.

Politically, President Obama’s defense of the mosque and his efforts to make it a First Amendment issue are incredibly self-destructive. They raise questions about his political sanity. It is hard to believe how tone deaf he must have become to take such a position. He has now embraced two positions that are anathema to two-thirds of all Americans — the mosque and opposition to Arizona’s immigration law. Neither was a controversy that sought him out. He waded into each one voluntarily with flags flying. He had no role in the Arizona law but his lawsuit to invalidate it made it his fight. He does not sit on the New York City Planning Commission, but his endorsement of the mosque puts him squarely in the center of controversy. What is he using for brains these days?

To continue the efforts to battle Sharia Law and the attempts of radical Muslims to use it to destroy our values and the gains of feminism, [authentic feminism] please follow the work funded by the Center for Security Policy and conducted by David Yerushalmi. To help to fund their efforts, go to centerforsecuritypolicy.org.

Think about this. And for those who don’t want to think this through, let’s spell it out.

No reasonable person thinks that the developers don’t have the legal right to build a mosque on that spot. But do they have a moral right to build there?

There is such a thing as propriety.

The project of this Mosque is not neutral in meaning. The location is not neutral in meaning. The desire behind building this particular mosque is not neutral.

In my opinion it is spectacularly insensitive to press for this mosque to be built at that site. It would be tantamount to building a church dedicated to Christian children martyred under an Islamic regime next to a place revered by Muslims.

70 Responses to Sts. Nunilo and Alodia pray for us… at Ground Zero

I took a class on Islam in college 25 years ago, before any of this became a big political issue. We visited a mosque an hour away as a field trip. It was attractive and the people were very friendly and gracious — after the service, which we attended only part of, a lot of them came to meet us in their “community room” or whatever its official name was. I think there were 8 of us, four young men and four young women. As I remember it, about half were foreign and the other half were (or at least dressed and sounded) American. They asked us how we liked their mosque, and what our class was about, and told us to come back any time. It was a long time ago but the thing I remember most was the long tables of posters of the (then extemely famous) Ayatollah Khomeni that anyone could take. They were Soviet-style posters of him in heroic poses. Most designs included weapons, although a few were just his head. I took a couple because I thought they were bizarre and kind of cool (hey, I was 18). I got the impression then that he was a big hero, but not that they wanted similar heroes in the USA. This was in the midwest.

There were only 8 students in the class. One was a girl from Pakistan who wanted to hear a Western view of Islam. She added explanations from time to time. One was a fighter pilot. One was a member of Campus Crusade for Christ, who wanted to be a missionary (she would not have been a good one, IMHO). The rest of us were history majors who wanted some understanding of Islam. I wish I had kept my books.

We talked about the concept of jihad during the class, and about how Islam is much more of an “outer” religion than Christianity. It is more important that you follow the rules than that you internalize them. Not that Islam doesn’t say it’s important to believe and pray — it does. But across the board, most types of Islam teach that you have to DO the religion (pray at the right times, make the pilgrimage, give to the poor, etc.). How you think or feel about it isn’t that important, according to my professor. That is one reason that Islam could force people to convert and still be logical. Converts just had to follow the rules (sharia law) to be considered good Muslims. We also talked about the ideal Islamic government being run by clerics (such as the Ayatollah). That is not a cultural thing, like the development of Christian kingdoms in Europe, but in the official teachings of Islam. Jihad is a little more complicated, theologically.

It is highly likely that Saudi Arabian money will go for financing some or all of the Ground Zero Mosque.

Saudi Arabia permits no Christian churches or chapels to be constructed within its territory (possibly with the exception of embassy compounds). Christianity is actively persecuted in virtually every other Middle Eastern Arab country.

Any building and occupancy permit within the vicinity of Ground Zero should have attached to it a treaty with Saudi Arabia allowing for the construction of Christian churches and facilities within the ten largest cities of that country (Mecca and Medina excluded).

Father, did you hear about the Greek Orthodox Church that was crushed by one of the towers on 9/11? The city is basically refusing to work with them and the Church has been given permission to rebuild, in 2 years!!!!

Don’t forget to stop in at St. Peter’s, 16 Barclay St., corner of Church. It’s the oldest Catholic congregation in New York. Cardinal Ratzinger visited there, in the shadow of the Twin Towers, to give a very interesting message on Bible study. So can our readers.
Rev. Moderator has visited OLV at Pine and William, a very busy congregation near NYSE. Perhaps next time he can stop at St. Peter’s and the Mother Seton Shrine; the latter is near the ferry to Staten Island.Salutationes omnibus.

As of yet St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church has been stonewalled, and the port authority is refusing to meet with them for the rebuilding. The Greeks know all to well the viciousness of Islamic domination, and if this mosque is a go, may God grant through the prayers of St. Nicholas that the church dedicated to him be rebuilt, and that the bells ring out for the Muslims in the neighborhood to hear. May it remind them that in America we are a free people and that sharia law, God willing, will never take place here. The Church in America still has the freedom to convert the Muslims, and we need to start to actively pursue the salvation of their souls while we can. There is real void in the reaching out to them for conversion.

Not only does Saudi Arabia not permit construction of churches, but it has banned Bibles and other non-muslim books, ‘idols'(like crucifixes) and ‘public’ non-muslim prayer (which their laws do not define very well, so that even praying inside your house is ‘public’), but they also do not permit clergy to enter the country.
We should pray for the 10 000 Catholic Philipinos living in terror in S. A.

Msgr. Charles Pope has an interesting article about how if the government intervenes to not allow the mosque to be built, it may later intervene to not allow Catholic churches to be built. I don’t know what the right answer is but it is an interesting point of view.

I have to disagree here. No matter how much I disagree with Islam, they have every right in this country to build the community center. They have property rights to build on their privately owned land. They have Religious rights to practice their religion as they want, which would include building a place to gather in an area convenient to those who are being served. The Imam has freedom of speech to espouse Shariah Law.

What we think is “proper” doesn’t really matter.

In addition, I found that article rather poorly written. Its a community center, not a mosque (as there is a mosque a couple of blocks away, from what I understand). It is modeled on YMCAs and meant to be a place to gather, with pools and gyms and theater, bookstore, etc. The man in charge is an ImaM, not ImaN (a term used twice, so probably not a typo). The author gives 0 evidence that the leader is any kind of radical, other than he prepares a list showing how well accepted Islam is in various countries (You’ve never seen any Catholic discussing the right to practice in countries such as, oh say, China or Saudi Arabia? Thats not radical, its practical). I am rather skeptical of the survey saying 80% of mosques espouse terrorism (especially a large number of american muslims are african-americans, who have generally embrassed it as a religion of peace.

The very first line states “It would be…a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center.” Not exactly the start to an objective article.

He then compares Obama’s stand on the Arizona law and this, and how they are against popular opinion. Fact of the matter is, he is right on both cases. There are likely (people in the law community have stated) unconstitutional parts of that bill. It was even more true before Arizona rushed through a band-aid bill after the uproar, trying to change the most obvious problems. He is also right that the people who own property are allowed to build on it as they want.

He is also wrong that the Imam is not covered by free speech. He can preach a life of Jihad and Shariah law all he wants. As long as nothing he espouses represents a “clear and present danger” he is allowed (he can say “Islam must takeover the west”, but not “We are going to attack the white house next month”)

My apologies for that rather long rant (and I must admit, I had more to say, but my post is already rather leangthy), but if I’m two things, its passionately Catholic, and passionately Libertarian, and this issue is a case where the latter is more important than the former.

In my hometown, a former Methodist church was converted into a mosque. A couple of weeks ago, the local paper had a front page story of a tour that was conducted in the mosque-some of the visitors were members of the former Methodist congregation. One lady just ‘gushed’ over it. [yech]

The Moslems that have settled here are mostly from Bosnia and Somalia. The iman who conducted the tour was a Bosnian. In the photo that accompanied the article, he was dressed in his robes. Gave me the creeps-all I could think of was Iran!

I don’t like the thought of a mosque near Ground Zero in New York. I don’t like how the politicians rammed the approval through when ‘regular folks’ [voters] didn’t want it.

When Moslems stop persecuting Christians in countries like Saudi Arabia, then maybe we can talk about a mosque IN ANOTHER PART OF NEW YORK CITY-not before! But I won’t hold my breath on this!

While the Muslims have a right to build,is it ethical? Should they be sensitive to the reality that 70 percent of New Yorkers(Taken from Bill Cunningham Show August 18, 2010)do not want the mosque/cultural center to be there. While something may be lawful, it might not be profitable or ethical. Maybe the Muslims need to show some sensitivity here, but I doubt that will happen.

On the one hand, as the laws stand, it would be illegal for NYC or NY state or the federal government to prohibit them building where they’ve chosen. Does anyone recall the scene from A Man For All Seasons where St. Thomas More is rebuffing his family’s good-meaning call for the arrest of Rich? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk Even the evil one himself should be given the protection of law, because if we enthusiastically break or bend or eliminate the law to remove this threat, the laws will be that much weakened the next time the issue arises. And we all know who this world was given over to, it’s naive to think in the short-term. Perhaps today, we could generate enough popular support to pressure our leaders into denying the Muslims that ability to build this distasteful and disrespectful mosque, but what about a few years from now, if the same population becomes hateful of Catholics and the winds blow us down?

On the other hand, the name of the group wanting to build this mosque is the “Cordoba Initiative” – whose namesake is the Cordoba Caliphate in 11th century, Muslim-conquered Spain. The symbolism of that name, purposefully and deliberately chosen, represents Muslim conquest and expansionism into the Roman world. America is the new West, and the West’s last bastion of anything resembling coherence. After my own reading and thinking, I have come to agree with those (like many here) who believe that Mohammadism is not compatible with a democratic republic. Just look at the Parisian suburbs dominated by Islamic Sharia. French law enforcement doesn’t even go into those neighborhoods any longer, and they act as their own principalities, being “French” in name only. All of that happened without bombings or terrorism, and was brought about slowly through sheer demographic power. And look at the tolerance showed by “our friends” Saudi Arabia: Bibles and crucifixes are illegal, Coptics are under constant threat from their neighbors. Therefore, just because a Muslim group proclaims that Islamic Terrorism is wrong or unnecessary doesn’t mean that the end goals are any different than those desired by the most vile Al-Qaeda.

American laws and institutions should be protected from any threat within or without, but I’m not sure that fighting this battle at this location and time is the wise road.

Of course the claim is made the The Cordoba Initiative hopes to help mediate religious conflicts. And looking at some of the Cordoba Initiative advisors (i.e., Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong) they certainly won’t find Christianity a ‘threat’.

It seems to be a bit of a two-edged sword. The Muslim community should have the sensitivity to not do this in the first place. However, if the U.S. government were to come in and say “no”, it could set a very dangerous precedent regarding the construction of any religious building, including Catholic churches, schools, universities, etc. We may have to “grin and bear it” in order to maintain Holy Mother Church’s own freedom in this country, which seems tenuous at best considering the phrase “freedom of worship” rather than “freedom of religion” is being used with ever greater frequency.

I recall that during the previous pontificate a group of cloistered nuns began the process of building a convent adjacent to Auschwitz.
There was an uproar, with the usual port-leaning suspects berating them for their gross insensitivity. The good sisters withdrew and
built elsewhere.

Contrast the nuns’ humility with the folks of the Cordoba Initiative, who have declared that they will build nowhere else, and that cost
is no object. It seems that for the builders of this mosque, demonstrating gross insensitivity is rather the point. While I sadly agree
that if they have followed all of the zoning and property laws they have every right to proceed, I take comfort in the knowledge that
New Yorkers have long memories and are not shy of direct expression of displeasure.

It will be especially rich if the Cordoba Initiative find themselves with new neighbors operating a bar, a pork BBQ takeaway, or some
other business that offends sharia sensibilities. Would Imam Feisal Rauf have the chutzpa to complain of his neighbor’s insensitivity?

The statement “The proposed mosque near to ground zero is not really a religious institution. It would be — as many mosques throughout the nation are — a terrorist recruitment, indoctrination and training center,” is unsupported. I’d like to know how Morris does know those things and for him to cite his sources. But let’s concede that he’s correct for the sake of argument.

The United States, the State of New York and the City of New York all have laws that make such activities illegal. (With the possible exception of indoctrination, presuming it’s not forcible. Our thoughts and words are free in liberal (small L) democracy and ideas can be proposed, examined and adopted in an open economy of ideas. An example of indoctrination is an RCIA class.) They also each have enforcement agencies and adjudication and penal systems for those laws.

What is being proposed is a place of lawful religious assembly. I’m not so naive that I don’t recognize how at times such places provide a convenient cover for other activities. I prefer to allow the freedom of repugnant theologies to be expressed in an open society, and to hold my government accountable for ensuring that expression doesn’t cross over into harming more than the minds of our citizens. I can’t see why another American would have a problem with that.

The problem with your argument is that Islam is not a religion. It has a religious veneeer, but it is a complete political and economic system, controlled from Saudi Arabia (as it always has been) and aimed at world domination.

Personally, I don’t think either mosques or Islam should be allowed in this country at all. But Ground Zero Mosque is nothing but an advance celebration of their victory, which they have won primarily by buying all of our institutions and finally our government itself.

I fear that this sequence of events is in no way good for us Catholics.

If the mosque is built:
It means the perpetuating of the islamification of our culture. If not just that, then it is also at least a triumph of religious indifferentism- because the rationale often given for allowing the mosque is that the people who carried out the attacks were not ‘real’ Muslims- when in fact all they were doing was following the Quran. There is a kind of appeal to an amorphous ‘Islam’ with no real hard characteristics. In effect, this mosque is a monument to religious indifferentism.

If it is not built:
It will be a severe blow to freedom of religion. If some crowds can compel the government to interfere with the building of a religious building in the public square- then there is not much that cannot be done by the government with regard to the public display of religion. This is one step in the direction of having the government regulate the religious square…

This is not a good thing for catholics no matter how one tries to boil it down. It is a step twords one of the two extremes the Pope Benedict XVI warned about in his Regensburg address. [Good point.] On the one hand- it is a step towards indifferentism- which is a dismissal of supernatural faith because it dismisses all religions as equal and true in a sort of sentimental and generic way- it is a glorification of reason over and above faith. Or it is a step towards Islam, which is a faith that is often irrational- a faith without reason.

This is a very peculiar event… fueling both secularism in the public square and extremism in religion. It seems to me that this is a move designed to polarize the public square… it almost seems to be an intentional agitation of society to cause a conflict instigated by the ‘powers that be’.

the Greek Orthodox Church that was crushed by one of the towers on 9/11? The city is basically refusing to work with them and the Church has been given permission to rebuild, in 2 years

Just so we have clarity on the issue, the City did not refuse to work with the Greek Church. It offered them a seemingly pretty good deal of cash and an additional larger property elsewhere in the City. It wanted to use the site of the destroyed Church for underground, secure parking I believe. For whatever reason, it was not mentioned in the news story, the Church apparently did not accept that offer and it was therefore pulled from the table by the City. The City has then said that the Church can rebuild on its existing site over the secure parking which the City will still put in. Unfortunately for the Church that process will take another two years. I see no malice there but just the usual incompetence of bureaucracies.

I throw out this idea that freedom of religion does not mean freedom for all religions to practice to the same extent. This, I realize, seems a very anti-American stance, but if one truly believes that Islam is a man-made religion, which it is, and not one of the two revealed religions, Christianity and Judaism, that is, created by God, then we have a duty not to allow the promulgation of falsehood and lies.

Catholics who believe that all religions are the same are relativists, and not faithful Catholics. I realize this is a contentious point, but should we be supporting religious freedom for any group where there are obvious contradictions to Natural Law, as Shariah Law obviously is, and where a prophet is outside the canon of true prophets, whether major or minor?

Religious tolerance could be defined as letting those outside the Catholic Faith observe their faith, but not be allowed to proselytize. As Catholics, we cannot fudge on the Truth, who is Christ. False religions should not be allowed to proselytize in America.

Monarchies may be a better form of government, as democracy opens itself up to either mob rule, or gross relativism.

The law dealt with this long ago, because enterprising prisoners are always trying to invent religious claims for themselves.

My personal favorite was at the Atlanta Pen. Fellow filed a petition on behalf of the Church of the New Song. Their ‘sacrament’ was rye whisky and T-bone steaks, which petitioner demanded to have in quod.

A judge long since gone to his reward, Hon. Newell Edenfield of pleasant memory, refused to dismiss the petition (he couldn’t under the law). Petitioner promptly canonized him as the First Saint of the Church of the New Song. However, the judge tossed the case on summary judgment, whereupon he was disenfranchised and excommunicated . . . . so it goes. All of us young law clerks watched this drama unfold with attention and no little amusement, there were T-shirts and a party at one point if I recall correctly.

But seriously, there is absolutely no problem in constitutional law with suppressing a religion that advocates breaking the law or endangering the public. Given the history of recent Islamic activities (including those by the very imam who is sponsoring this Victory Mosque) the government should treat them just like it used to treat Communists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government.

Nostra Aetate, of course, states that there is never to be persecution, and that word could cover many activities of a state, but Dominus Jesus clearly states that there are only two true religions, and that the word religion must be applied carefully. I agree that Islamism is just as dangerous as Marxism or any other ism, all of which are man-made and far from the Truth. Islamism wants a global Islamic government run under Sharia(h)Law. A dangerous “religion”, indeed…and there would be no room for Catholics or other Christians, just as there is zero religious freedom in Saudi Arabia.

Again, the freedom of religion basis for deciding on the placement of the mosque ignores the real threat and triumphalism of those behind the building. Either we use our laws wisely and with circumspection, or we shall lose all of constitutional law, created by the West, and developed under Christendom.

“But seriously, there is absolutely no problem in constitutional law with suppressing a religion that advocates breaking the law or endangering the public.”

As did Catholicism for years, with bishops endangering children and advocating that they could breaking the law to avoid “scandalizing the faithful”? What about all the Catholic clergy and faithful who’ve broken the law in civil disobedience outside abortion clinics? I am sure in law school you came upon the concept of “slippery slope.” It sounds as if you’d like to outlaw Islam in its entirety. Is that what you mean?

I think the idea here is to stop the spreading of an “ism”, which is a danger to the Christian/Western practice of law, with an understanding on my part, taken partly from Catholic teaching, that only true religions are allowed to proselytize; that is, to gain new adherents, as there is an objective difference in truth and falsehood. Otherwise, why should Catholics send out missionaries, if all “religions” are the same or all true, which they are not.

Archbishop Dolan wants to act as an intermediary. Some Franciscan priest upheld Bloomberg’s decision, but the Archbishop wants to meet with the mosque backers. However, last week, “the developers issued a statement saying they did not intend to build the center somewhere else”. The fact that the developers do not want to build any place else is an indication of their disingenuous effort at “civic cooperation”. The Archbishop had to deal with a similar problem earlier this year, mentioned in the above text. Catholic hierarchy must come up with a unified and solid stance on this and other issues regarding Islam, otherwise the Church in America looks amateurish, naive, and foolish.

I see I have to be very precise here, PC. But this is not a slippery slope — it’s a very clear bright line with a six foot stone wall and concertina wire on the top.

It’s the difference between being a civilized Western individual who can afford to parse the minutiae of zoning laws and ordinances governing civil discourse . . . and an adherent of an overarching system that seeks to govern every aspect of its members’ lives and impose brutal punishment on anybody who steps out of line.

By “advocates breaking the law”, I mean breaking not sidewalk gathering or public preaching or lunch counter laws, but the laws against rape, mutilation, and murder. Like stoning, strangling girls who ‘dishonor’ the family by wearing makeup or going on a date, shooting rape victims in the back of the head, hanging apostates and pushing brick walls over on homosexuals. Imams that advocate the imposition of shari’ah law are advocating exactly that kind of fearsome punishment. Well-meaning loons (like the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury) who think we can let Muslims impose shari’ah law and still ‘all just get along’ have not thought this process through.

Most people can distinguish between ‘civil disobedience’ to purely malum prohibitum laws, which does not advocate violence and does not place innocent persons in danger — and a religion that advocates death, maiming, and torture (and often encourages its adherents to carry them out in a self-help manner). That moreover thinks that anyone outside its borders, including ‘apostates’, is worthy of death and can be slain without consequences (other than praise as a martyr).

And this directly concerns us because in places like Malmo and the suburbs of Paris, these horrific punishments are imposed on everyone, including Western women who happen to come within the observation of the local bully boys and are beaten or raped for failing to ‘dress properly’.

All you have to do to see this for yourself is wait until the practitioners of the ‘religion’ reach a sufficient percentage of the population to come out from under their taqqiyah disguises. I am frankly quite content to learn from Sweden and France without experiencing it for myself.

As for the bishops endangering children *straw man alert*, they were wrong, they broke the precepts of the Church AND the laws of the state. What does that have to do with not allowing a legal/social/religious system that is in every way contrary to the basic moral and legal precepts of the West to take over?

Any criticism from the NCR, please take as a compliment. As to the Papal policy of reaching out to rational Muslims and those who are open to real dialogue between “faith groups”, I would assume that the Pope advocates reason as that is the way to Truth, who is a Person. A truly rational man or woman would be a happy Catholic. Also, as to Winter stating that he does not know anyone who takes inspiration from the 9th century is ignoring the first 900 years of Catholicism and the Founder, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Greatest Inspiration, the Incarnate God, from the 1st century. Pray for us, dear little sister saints.

I guess I’m one of those loons who does not see every American Muslim as someone out to institute Shari’ah law, as well as being one of the loons that thinks that liberal democracy and western law is the best way to deal with vigilantes who would attempt to impose Shari’ah.

The straw man was intentional. Glad you noticed–but never forget it’s the favorite rhetorical device of the politician.

from the Associated Press today to reporters today–http://bigjournalism.com/mwalsh/2010/08/19/the-associated-press-issues-guidelines-for-reporting-on-the-ground-zero-mosque-first-guideline-dont-call-it-the-ground-zero-mosque/

Politics are running the show and the politically correct are against the 70% of Americans who do not want the Ground-Zero Mosque

Jordanes – Anti-Catholics say lots of things about Catholicism, but one thing you cannot say is that it is a system that wants to be a political and economic system as well as a cosmology (which is all Islam is).

Islam is a theocracy, which is of course a system where the civil law and the religious law are one and the same and the clergy are the ultimate rulers (like the Ayatollah Whatever). This does not work with Christianity because since the very beginning, God and Caesar have been separate. Religion informs the behavior of the individual and a rightly run society will adhere to the principles of Christianity (but not necessarily its religious law). However, theocracy is inimical to it.

The only attempts at theocracy have been things like Calvin’s Geneva and, in fact, the Puritans who came to the US were not seeking “religious freedom,” but to be able to construct their own theocratic society after having been chased out of other places for attempting to impose this society on their neighbors. Read up on Roger Williams and Rhode Island to see how this ended. It’s simply that any form of Christianity is incompatible with theocracy and that is why theocratic systems never work in Christianity.

On the other hand, Islam was essentially founded as a device to protect Mohammed’s depredations. He was clearly somewhat of a sociopath who had a dream encouraging him to go out and conquer the world, and then he set about having other dreams and revelations that built up his syncretist religious credentials and made his control over conquered territories much firmer.

Joseph Smith – followed by Brigham Young – attempted this in the US, and it took the force of the US Army to make Mormons back down and agree to accept the rights of man and the standards of the US Constitution. At the rise of Islam, alas, Rome had ceased to be a power, the Eastern Church was divided by heresies and far from the Western Church, and there was no one to stop Mohammed in time.

For the record, a newspaper in Egypt has claimed that the Ground-Zero Mosque is a “Zionist conspiracy”. This link is worth reading in order to understand the mind of those who desire sharia law everywhere and do not want 9/11 linked with Islam. So much for rationality…

“The French king, whom Savonarola at the head of an embassy of Florentines had visited at Pisa, now entered the city. After the king’s departure a new and peculiar constitution, a kind of theocratic democracy, was established at Florence, based on the political and social doctrines the Dominican monk had proclaimed. Christ was considered the King of Florence and protector of its liberties. A great council, as the representative of all the citizens, became the governing body of the republic and the law of Christ was to be the basis of political and social life. Savonarola did not interfere directly in politics and affairs of State, but his teachings and his ideas were authoritative. The moral life of the citizens was regenerated.

…There arose an actual police for regulating morality, which also carried on its work by the objectionable methods of spying and denunciation. The principles of the severe judge of morals were carried out in practical life in too extreme a manner.”

The Encyclopedia concludes:

“In the beginning Savonarola was filled with zeal, piety, and self-sacrifice for the regeneration of religious life. He was led to offend against these virtues by his fanaticism, obstinacy, and disobedience. He was not a heretic in matters of faith. The erection of his statue at the foot of Luther’s monument at Worms as a reputed “forerunner of the Reformation” is entirely unwarranted.”

Let me start with the last point, Father Z. Islam has lived shoulder to shoulder with the ethos of Western Civilization and unlike most minority groups in Christian majorities, has had the least success at “adapting”. The problems of the cartoon crisis in the Netherlands and the lack of adaptability of the Muslim people. The law suits regarding dress and the imposition of Sharia Law in some areas of Great Britain are also examples of this lack of adaptation. Adaptation for the Muslim means giving up the law supposedly given by Allah.

Secondly, and going backwards up the list, the West cannot adapt or accomodate Islamism, especially the current mode of Islamic interpretation as anti-West for whatever reasons, because at root, Western Civilizations, based on Greco-Roman ideals of law and on the Judaic-Christian ideals of morality (until recently), are two areas of contention for the Moslem, who rejects both the Greco-Roman ideal of law and the Judeo-Christian view of morality, especially the Christian view of the Beatitudes and the New Covenant of Love. Sharia law is based not on civil rights, but ancient, pre-Christian tribal customs and laws which conflict daily with the more complex legal systems of the West. Also, the entire idea of “rights” for all, such as women and children, is completely foreign to anyone interpreting the Koran in its traditional interpretations-that is, eliminating more modern, “moderate” or revisionists interpretations not accepted by the majority of Moslems. One of the core issues is the origin of law itself. The West (until recently)believes in Natural Law and basic rights from a secular humanist point of view at best, where the so-called sacred Koran and Hadith(s)have “created” the immutable Islamic law. Moslems do not accept the West’s preoccupation with secular humanism.

Thirdly, the West is still tied to Christianity, which historically has been radically opposed to Islam, for some of the reasons above (law and order, morality, civil rights),but also because of a fundamentally different view of Man’s (generic) relationship to God. Those who believe that the most important event in history is the Incarnation, that the moment God entered history as a Human Being, He changed history, creation, Man’s relationship with God, forever, will always be at odds with those who claim that God is either only a harsh judge, a deified watchmaker who ignore His creation, or a being who is capable of being inconsistent and changeable, as do the Islamists.

I think that the Western view of God and God’s relation to Man is directly opposed to that of Islam. Of course, sacramental theology, the theologies of social action and justice, as well as the relationship of God, Man, the Church, literature, science and art (hated by the Moslems), etc. have all been changed by the Incarnation. Whether secularists want to admit it or not, without the Incarnation, the West would not exist as a separate, highly sophisticated society.

One may counter and state that neither the Buddhists, nor the Hindus believe in the Incarnation, but they also do not have, as part of their theology, a world-view of dominance over the West, nor a desire for completely serving their gods by conquest.

Muslims cannot understand, nor embrace the Incarnate God without grace, as the idea of a God-Man is so repulsive to them as to be a reason for violence against the West. It is this hatred of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity and the Holy Spirit which binds the Muslim to hate of the followers of Christ and His Church. The so-called moderates have left sections of their own faith behind in order to be moderate and are likewise hated by their more devout brethren.

Father, regarding your questions posed at 9:00 p.m., I like to offer a tough:

Western Civilization was once called Christiandom.

The whole body of Christian states, the Holy Roman Empire, the several kindoms, the principalities, the republics, etc, was known as the Corpus Christianum, or Christiana res publica.

But Christiandom is a form of Western Civilization that is completely different from the Modern Western Civilization.

(And I use the world Modern here on purpose, because I want to refer not only to a contemporary Western Civilization, to the Western Civilization of our times, but also to a Western Civilization that is infiltrated, plagued, with the Spirit of Modernism).

The Western Civilization of abortion, of “gay marriage”, of divorce, of adoption by a gay couple, of the demolition of the family values, the Western Civilization attended by a female “priesthood”; a Western civilization that wants to water down or suppress its Catholic roots; the Happy Holidays Western Civilization that allows a war on Christmas to succeed; the consumption-hungry, the post-sexual revolution; the hedonist Western Civilization of our times, that Western Civilization has nothing or little to do with Christiandom.

It is a descendant of Christiandom, but is ashamed of its Christian heritage. It praises the French Revolution, the philosophers and thinkers who aided in the demolition of Christiandom, it considers itself “evolved” from a provincial religious mindset.

Thus, what is needed is the restoration, the re-edification of a Christian Civilization. To restore all things in Christ entails the rebuilding of a Christian World. Is that feasible or will the Church continue to be more and more marginalized and persecuted?

So, those are in my opinion the answers to the questions posed:

Islam can adjust neither to a Christian Civilization nor to the Modern Western World. Christiandom could never accomodate Islam and remain Christiandom. Both the Modern Western Civilization and Christiandom are radically opposed to Islam. But, unlike Christiandom, the Modern Western Civilization, with its fuzzy mentality, will try to get along with Islam, to accomodate it, perhaps to absorb it in its melting pot of watered down religious in ecumenical dialogue. But perhaps Islam will not be so easy to swallow, perhaps Modern Western Civilization will have to make more and more concessions in the process. But it will try to coexist with Islam. In the end, pacifism and the “can’t we all get along” mentality will always push the Modern Western Civilization towards compromise and political correctness.

I agree. But Western Civilization has already compromised its most valuable asset: its Christian character.

Christ promised that the Church would endure forever, but he never promised that a Christian Civilization would endure unto the end of the world.

In the early days of the history of the Church, in the time of the catacombs, there was the Church, but there wasn’t a Christian civilization. Christians were persecuted. Thanks to the powers of evangelization, the Faith was propagated, so that not only masses of individuals and peoples converted to Christ, but States changed their attitude. First with toleration (edict of Milan), then by becoming Christian States. So Christiandom was formed.

But as the multitudes now abandon their Christian roots, as the Church is marginalized, as European countries once deeply Catholic such as Portugal and Spain adhere to abortion and gay marriage, one can no longer speak of the Western Civilization as the civilization of Christianity.

So it won’t be a Christian Civilization that will be absorbed by Islam. It is not Christian London that is becoming Londonistan. What difference does it make if one is Islamic or Atheist, when all should be Christians, and by that I mean members of the actual Church, not of structures such as the bizzarre Anglican joke?

And yet, I believe that the pursuit of personal freedom, in the good sense of the words, and the desire for a free society based on justice,is still in the hearts of the majority of people, who will, in the end, revolt against tyranny of any kind, be it Islamist or Marxist. Albeit, a small minority of the Western people are actually awake to the dangers of either complacency or false peace, but could it not be that the Christian West is a sleeping giant, which only grace can awake,and will? I think that the world as we know it is coming to an end in our lifetime, but I also believe in the remnant, who will suffer, be persecuted, and thrive, just as the martyrs in Rome provided life to the Church in the centuries after the great persecutions.

But via the Enlightenment. Absolute monarchy more closely parallels the Christian ideal, and that’s why there are still coronation rites in your

and those principles can be destroyed in the twinkling of an eye.

I have been to two countries while terrible wars have taken place (the former Yugoslavia–specifically Montenegro and Serbia, and Kyrgystan) and have seen the society of decent and good people come apart at it seams first hand. What I come away with from the experience is that wars are started over scarce resources and inequality in their division. The principle of blind justice and equality before the law are their own defense. Weakening those principles is the surest way to unravel the whole.

Are Western Civilization (so intimately tied to Christianity) and Islam simply and radically opposed to each other?

Nothing is simple, particularly not when dealing with matters of religion. There is more than one flavor of Islam, just as there is more than one of your Christianity and certainly more than one of my atheism. I would expect that as Islam confronts western societies it will change and adapt, with some practitioners becoming more fundamentalist and some developing entirely new religious outlooks. Consider Judaism: 100 years ago there was no Reform movement; today Reform Judaism overwhelming predominates in the United States and the UK.

Can Western Civilization “absorb”, “accommodate”, Islam and still remain Western Civilization?

It very much depends on the precepts of the Islam being practiced and how doctrinaire one decides to be over it. Cutting off the hands of thieves? Stoning girls who have sex outside of marriage (but not the boys?) No, no more than it can accommodate a Judaism that sends menstruating women off to a tent or condones slavery.

Can Islam adjust itself to the ethos of Western Civilization and still remain Islam?

That’s a matter of definition. Consider how you folks draw distinctions between “ecclesial communities” and churches, recognize the baptisms of some Christians and not of other denominations that would consider themselves Christian, and so on. How Islam adapts itself in the west–it will–may be utterly rejected elsewhere. I really wouldn’t want to be the arbiter of what is authentic. Particularly since I think all of the Abrahamic religions are an anachronistic nonsense.

Supertradmum said “As Catholics, we cannot fudge on the Truth, who is Christ. False religions should not be allowed to proselytize in America.”

The problem with that is that Protestants, Muslims, militant atheists and all sorts of other groups can also say the same thing – and part of that would involve supressing Catholicism, or at least its public manifestations.

Of course they do not have the Truth, and we do. But whilst that may help ultimately, it doesn’t stop the immediate problems.

The idea of religious tolerance, of us all agreeing that we can all practice our religions not just privately but also publically (provided they stop short of human sacrifice or burning heretics) is there because we think it is better to allow freedom for Error than to risk Truth being supressed. If you want to take on that fight, how sure are you of winning?

If you want to see the problems caused by lack of proper religious freedom, look at the Islamic countries (where the Muslims are dominant), or what is happening in most of the West (where militant atheism is dominant and is slowly dismantling religious freedom).

I believe it was the teaching of the Church, until the Vatican Documents, that the State had the duty to protect and defend the Catholic Faith, but none others, with regard to proselytizing. Even as late as the Pontificate of Pius XI, this was the accepted view, that for order and for truth, the monarchies or variations thereof took coronation oaths to defend the Catholic Church against Her enemies. For example, Blessed Karl of Austia died an early death after giving his life to Christ as propitiation for the sins of socialism and secularism in his beloved country. He died in exile. His wife, Empress Zita, has had her cause open for canonization as of last December. These are the people who took their oaths seriously and would not abandon the Church to Modernism and false religion.

Our modern leaders have lost this sense of obligation for the spiritual welfare of their people, a sad commentary on contemporary politics and the loss of personal responsibility for holiness among leaders. Those king, emperor, and prince saints understood that one cannot separate the good of society, the material good, and the spiritual in a nation without chaos. This is partly what is behind my comments.

The article said “In the United Kingdom, many courts have recognized Sharia as the governing law on matters between two Muslims.”

I think that statement is misleading. Sharia gets no special treatment in the English courts.

In private matters between individuals or businesses, in England you can choose any law or court, or anyone else you want, to resolve your disputes, provided you both agree to it.

I have seen contracts say that disputes will be settled by the Delaware courts applying Delaware law (even though the parties have nothing to do with the USA), or (even odder) by Delaware courts applying English law. Others say that disputes involving financial disputes will be settled by a Chartered Accountant applying accounting principles, or by a Chartered Surveyor for building disputes.

There are also arbitration companies that effectively operate as private courts, and there would be nothing to stop a Catholic setting up an arbitration service based on Catholic principles of Social Justice.

Under the English laws on arbitration all of these are binding (except in exceptional circumstances). So if you agree to let the Delaware courts, or an accountant, or a private arbitrator settle the dispute, then you can’t subsequently ask the English courts to re-examine it just because you didn’t like the answer.

All that has happened (so far) with Sharia courts in England is that they are used to settle disputes in the same way, and are recognised in the same way.

However none of these, foreign courts, private courts, arbitrators or Sharia courts, cannot be used unless all the parties agree, and they cannot be used in criminal cases.

There has been some controversy about their use in divorce cases. In general in England if the couple agree to the terms of a divorce then the courts will rubber-stamp it, and so Muslim couples have been using Sharia courts to draw up an agreement under Sharia law. However this will only be binding if the man and woman both agree to it; if there is no agreement then the English courts will impose their own agreement. Even where there is agreement the English courts have in some cases refused to accept it (particularly where custody of children is involved).

Of course in some cases there is a question about whether an agreement is real, and there are worries that women face improper pressures to agree to Sharia arbitration. But that is a problem in many other situations, not just Sharia law.

There has been some discussion of extending the scope of Sharia law in divorce cases, but that ran into a huge public controversy and has not happened.

But what about those countries that didn’t follow the Church’s teaching?

Being English, I would much rather live under a system of religious toleration than under the system my ancestors had to live under, of an equivalent of “no freedom for error” but run by protestants.

Although I approve of monarchs carrying out their Coronation Oaths, I would be rather uncomfortable if Elizabeth II actually did anything substantial to “maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion”.

The Sharia Courts are actually in London, not in a foreign country. These are “out of court” settlement or arbitration professionals, and the legal system accepts the decrees. Muslim women have no Western rights in these courts. The politically correct leaders have caved in to pressure from the Islamist communities.

“It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.”

Part of the problem is that women who disagree with their husbands or fathers are fearful for their lives is they do not agree to whatever the problems are which are supposedly being solved.

Supertradmum, I know they are in London. So are most of the private arbitrators and other private “courts”.

There is no preferential treatment in English law for sharia courts; they are recognised on exactly the same basis as all those other arbitrators, some of which (such as the London Court of Arbitration) have been going for over a hundred years.

My question was do you think the English courts should stop recognising all binding arbitration and make everyone go to court to settle disputes, or is it specifically sharia that you want it to refuse to accept?

How might one go about setting up a consodality (or whatever) of Sts. Nunilo and Alodia – or of St. Lot, for that matter (aut al.) – that had among its goals the establishment of chapels and churches dedicated to the saint(s) in question?

First
Consider , I don’t know, but look it in the face:
Might , recoil as we may, recoil as we must, recoil as we should, the worst ills and horrors of sharia-observing Islamic socities in practice – don’t minimize the horrors- be BETTER, relatively, in the eyes of G-d Almighty , and allow for the saving of more souls, than where the polity that was christendom wilfully, wantonly, IS or IS GOING? The mass murder of babies, the exalatation of perversion, whatever is maybe already happening with experiments on human embryos….’?

Can Western Civilization “absorb”, “accommodate”, Islam and still remain Western Civilization?
How?
Indiviual moslems , yes.
But where and when has this happened, stably, with sizable moslem communities?

Can Islam adjust itself to the ethos of Western Civilization and still remain Islam?
1.trad or new ethos? Christianity cannot and should not accomodate the latter
2.Ask them.
Those that have already done that in practice dont cut no ice with the rest.

Cupla points Ive seen discussed nowhere:

Baptism brands, it marks, even tho the baptized commit, and die in, mortal sin to his own perdition.
There IS a difference to the whole of society when most are baptized.
Following point:
the earlist moslems will have many been baptised. Islam’s fringing inroads ditto.
But most of todays’ most observant, most fervant, most literalist , most fundamentalist , most sincere and aware and God(?)-fearing moslems tread a ghastly desert path burnt and open mentally all the time, with no cushion of baptism,no shade or refuge under the harshest of implacable suns, the most demanding of perfection, the most unforgiving- They SUFFER torments daily that we baptized cannot imagine, pray for them as we will.
And
Baptism arouses in these a unplumbable frustration, a maddening lack of understanding, an envy and a ferocious jelousy that we pretend away when we meet it.
( NB OK, Sure,St paul OK? : are we any more superior than the pharisee bragging in the temple? No
Is Christianity, sacraments, our faith,the very greatest treasure, tho boxed and carted abt by dime-a-dozen walmart cheepo pots, us ?
Yes)
(signed a soiled and broken potsherd)

When you shop…

... through Amazon, please, come here first? Enter Amazon through my search box. I'll then get a small percentage of everything you buy. (Pssst - Can't see the search box? Turn off your "ad-blocker" for this site!)

My wish lists

The horse is made ready for the day of battle, but the victory belongs to the LORD.

- Proverbs 21:31

Support them with prayer and fasting.

CLICK to buy Car Magnets & Stickers

Aedificantium enim unusquisque gladio erat accinctus.

- Nehemiah 4:18

"Let God arise! Let His enemies be scattered! Let those who hate him flee before His Holy Face!"

CLICK and say your Daily Offering!

Let us pray…

Grant unto thy Church, we beseech
Thee, O merciful God, that She, being
gathered together by the Holy Ghost, may
be in no wise troubled by attack from her
foes.
O God, who by sin art offended and by
penance pacified, mercifully regard the
prayers of Thy people making supplication
unto Thee,and turn away the scourges of
Thine anger which we deserve for our sins.
Almighty and Everlasting God, in
whose Hand are the power and the
government of every realm: look down upon
and help the Christian people that the heathen
nations who trust in the fierceness of their
own might may be crushed by the power of
thine Arm. Through our Lord Jesus Christ,
Thy Son, who liveth and reigneth with Thee
in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world
without end. R. Amen.

An outstanding opportunity to get into Latin and New Testament Greek

For Easter: another ethereal music CD from the chart-topping nuns…

Yes, Fr. Z is taking ads…

... and there will be nearly 1,000,000 page loads this month.

A bit more food for thought…

“Only one sin is nowadays severely punished: the attentive observance of the traditions of our Fathers. For that reason the good ones are thrown out of their places and brought to the desert.”

- Basil of Caesarea - ep. 243

Help Monks in Wyoming, Fr. Z, and get great coffee too!

And they have tea too!

Food For Thought

“The legalization of the termination of pregnancy is none other than the authorization given to an adult, with the approval of an established law, to take the lives of children yet unborn and thus incapable of defending themselves. It is difficult to imagine a more unjust situation, and it is very difficult to speak of obsession in a matter such as this, where we are dealing with a fundamental imperative of every good conscience — the defense of the right to life of an innocent and defenseless human being.”

- St. John Paul II

PLEASE RESPOND. Pretty pleeeease?

Should the US Bishops have us return to obligatory "meatless Fridays" during the whole year and not just during Lent?

Because you don’t know when you are going to need to move fast or get along without the supermarket…

For your consideration…

"One of the most dangerous errors is that civilization is automatically bound to increase and spread. The lesson of history is the opposite; civilization is a rarity, attained with difficulty and easily lost. The normal state of humanity is barbarism, just as the normal surface of the planet is salt water. Land looms large in our imagination and civilization in history books, only because sea and savagery are to us less interesting."

- C.S. Lewis

Identity theft is a serious problem that you do NOT want to have. I use Lifelock.

And for your cybersecurity…

Wyoming Catholic College!

A great place in Rome…

More food for thought:

“I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history.”

Check out the Cardinal Newman Society feed!

Be a “Zed-Head”!

Fr. Z’s stuff is everywhere

More food for thought…

"All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 176

Even More Food For Thought

"Men by their constitutions are naturally divided into two parties:
1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes.
2. Those who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most wise depositary of the public interests."

Additional Food For Thought

“And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

- Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Fathers, you don’t know who might show up! It could be a “big fish” of one sort or other…

And... GO TO CONFESSION!

Leave Voice Mail for Fr. Z

Nota bene: I do not answer these numbers or this Skype address. You won't get me "live". I check for messages regularly.

Help the Sisters. They have a building project. Get great soap (gifts, etc.) while helping REAL nuns!

Food For Thought

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. . . . Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

Archives

ENTRY CALENDAR

Do you use my blog often? Is it helpful to you?

If so, please consider subscribing to send a monthly donation. That way I have steady income I can plan on, and you wind up regularly on my list of benefactors for whom I pray and for whom I periodically say Holy Mass.

Some options

The opinions expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect the positions of any of the Church's entities with which I am involved. They are my own.